Tuesday, May 29, 2007

A Few Thoughts on the Private Equity Phenomenon

Private Equity is not going away. It will continue to grow and 10 years from now, we will think of it as just being another money management vehicle along side mutual funds, exchange traded funds, managed accounts, etc. Whereas mutual funds began as a way for small investors to improve diversification and have access to professional money managers, private equity funds are a means for institutions and the very wealthy to have access to more of a "hands on" business arrangement with corporate America. It is just another means of owning equity. As I have mentioned previously here, there is a growing feeling that a kind of imperial attitude has sprung up in corporate America. Corporate chieftains have figured out that they answer to everyone, while at the same time, answering to no one, and little by little they have begun to take advantage of their positions in ways that are increasingly unacceptable to many investors. I could not have imagined that this sort of imperial attitude would have become apparent so soon after the Enron fiasco, but $100 million dollar retirement packages for CEOs have become a way of life, with no end is in sight. I have always said that big money thinks and acts differently -- that's how they become "big money." I have a friend who is in this category. When he owns a stock, he will own several million dollars worth. He genuinely thinks that the CEO and the board of directors work for him ( he usually owns more stock than any of them), and if they act in ways that do not suit him, he does not cut bait and try another stock, he will pay the CEO a visit. He does not rant or rave, he just advises the person that he is unhappy, and he expects things to change. He usually has a list of things he does not believe are being handled well, as well as a list of costs that he believes are out of line. He asks for explanations, and if the answers are either not forthcoming or are evasive, he advises the CEO that he will attempt to change the make up of the board. I used to cringe every time he started off on one of his campaigns, but I have come to see things more his way. There are too many boards of directors who are not looking out for the good of the shareholders they are supposed to represent. They are only riding the gravy train just like everybody else. There are too many boards of directors who are not properly supervising their firms' strategies or top managements. They are just honored to be one of the "good old boys or girls" on an important board. My friend says says you can throw a dart at the Wall Street Journal and the odds are whatever company you hit can be run much more efficiently and much more profitably for shareholders if the company were being run by managers who ran the enterprise for the "owners." If my friend is right, and I believe he is, the private equity folks have enough companies to "clean up" to last a lifetime. The mutual fund industry is primarily engaged in the business of investing in stocks. The private equity industry is primarily engaged in investing in companies. There is an absolute world of difference between the two. Too many investors believe that the private equity crowd is bad for the markets and, like the leveraged buyout crowd, are destined to dry up and blow away. They are just as wrong in that assumption as they are in believing that the majority of boards of directors in this country are primarily serving the interests of their shareholders. There are private equity deals being announced every day. There is a simple meaning for their actions: US stocks are cheap, too cheap. With low interest rates and cash flows in good shape, if you throw a dart at the Wall Street Journal, you are likely going to hit a company that can not only be run more efficiently with a "owner" driven CEO, it can be bought with its own net worth. Private equity is just another way to own companies. My guess is that it is in its infancy and that is good news for the stock markets here and around the world. The surest evidence that this is true is that the government is moving to regulate it and tax it. I'm not going to tell you what my friend has to say about the government and taxes.

4 comments:

Biby Cletus said...

Cool blog, i just randomly surfed in, but it sure was worth my time, will be back

Deep Regards from the other side of the Moon

Biby Cletus

Jason R, an Indy resident said...

Private equity might not go away, and it hasn't just arrived for that matter. It cycles in and out of the public eye--the last time in the 80's. Anytime corporate America gets sloppy, glutenous, non-responsive and there is a enough cheap money floating around, "Private Equity" will surface and correct things. Some may not like it. Some think it is yet another gross pay scheme for clever MBA's and CFA's. But what has happened so far seems to make sense and will hopefully create better corporations that serve people better. It will go to an extreme sometime. It will get villified. And it will fade into the background. Private Equity's ability to do the deals that are occurring is largely a function of liquidity, interest rates and how sloppy corporate management has become. Once things "tighten up" (liquidity dries, interest rates rise too far, or Corp Execs get their crap together), the "hero" will fade into the background and do its thing more selectively.

It will not last forever at this rate. It can't. But corporations have gotten away from the capitalistic roots that make them efficient machines. Private Equity provides the creative destruction behind veiled curtains of "privacy" and correct the course. Competitiveness will straighten things up shortly thereafter...

Just my humble opinion.

Anonymous said...

Thoughts on the Private Equity Feeding Frenzy

Are Private Equity Buyouts any different than the Leveraged Buyouts of the early 80’s?

Four factors must exist for Private Equity Firms to flourish:

1. There must be large amounts of available cash
2. There must be a collection of “good” but vulnerable businesses available to buy (cheap)
3. There must be a bevy of mangers ready to run a company in a new manner
4. There must be available exit opportunities.

Leveraged buyouts utilized debt financing to acquire businesses in the 80’s. Private equity firms use investment capital to acquire businesses.
The goal of each is similar.
Re-engineer the company to deliver the inherent value of the company to the investors and increase its resale value on the open market.

If one looks at the current landscape:

1. Companies are cheap
2. Most companies are underperforming
3. There are literally “tons of free cash” available for investment. Returns of 15 to 20% per annum far exceed the 6% Bond returns and the 1.5 to 3% dividend return
4. Private equity firms can literally buy the best management without yielding to the “democracy” of the shareholder
5. Private Equity firms operate in private
The management of American Business must change as it is now felt that there is no business that is not a potential Private Equity Investment play.
To avoid this, businesses should either buy themselves back or work to increase value so that shareholders once again become “owners” and not just passive investors looking for the next Google or Microsoft.
Investing must once again be the road for the working individual to gather more than just a daily wage.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting, I learned something from this post and the comments. Two questions:
1. Is the recently announced buy out of Chrysler an example of a private equity deal?
2. I think CEO pay is outrageous but apologists say they are worth it and their pay merely reflects the free market working for limited pool of highly skilled managers. What does private equity tend to do to CEO pay, increase it, decrease it, no change or we don't have the info.